cancel_workflow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state change to CANCELLED, the execution-boundary behavior, and the effect of cancel_children. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the core side effects are transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with an introductory statement, behavioral details, an Args block, and a Returns block. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, all parameters, and return values (message, workflow_id). It provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly without external context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args block fully documents all three parameters: names, types, requiredness, and the default for cancel_children. This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Cancel a running workflow' and specifies that it sets the status to CANCELLED and stops at the next step boundary. This provides a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing cancellation from resume, delete, or bulk-cancel operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates that the tool applies to running workflows and explains the cancellation behavior, giving clear context for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for already-completed workflows), but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.